That’s exactly how the Web was at first. I clearly remember downloading Mosaic in the summer of 1993, a few months after its release. I clicked around for a few minutes, but quickly ran out of content. So I went back to gopherspace, which was rich and endless in comparison.
I believe subdomains on force.com are used for support portals by companies using Salesforce for customer contact. I've seen it used by Western Digital and a bunch of software or SaaS companies.
Ssh and p2p stuff are two examples off the top of my head. For p2p, you lose the ability for peers to initiate a connection with you if you block incoming traffic.
Because security and usability are inherently at odds, and Apple has always erred on the side of usability, until the security downsides are simply to great to ignore. This has been the pattern for every single security improvement in Mac OS X.
If you understand the tradeoffs, you can do a wide variety of things to massively increase the inherent security of your Mac by changing system and app configurations.
One of the great things about using unbound is how easy it is to blacklist entire domains, without having to know the name of each subdomain ahead of time. I've been doing what pihole does for over ten years using pfSense. I'm up to 437,000 fully qualified domain names blocked, and over ten thousand domains blocked outright. It has been years since I've seen an ad.
It's time to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Either internet companies can exert editorial control like this, or they can be free of the consequences of the libel, criminal threats, and intellectual property crimes they are party to. But not both.
Note that they didn't exert any control. It was discussed between colleagues. The email chain contained many warnings not to do this. Ultimately nothing came of it.
No. Why would it be? At an absolute minimum conspiracy requires some agreement. Which they didn't have here. This also seems to have been an open discussion so there was no secrecy amongst those who did agree.
IANAL, according to Section 1(1) in [1] for UK, the threshold is for two persons to agree to have the law applied to them. It doesn't require all to agree. And from 1(1)(b), it's not necessarily for the conspired act to be carried out under some circumstance.
For U.S. [2], the threshold for conspiracy against the U.S. government is similar or lower. Item (2) "they interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity" sounds a lot like what the Google employees were doing.
This data is meaningless for analysis without exposing the racial breakdown. That South Dakota county is almost certainly nearly all American Indians. The big red patch in the south is very likely largely influenced by lower African American lifespans.
How does that make it meaningless? Yes, certain segments of the population are even more underserved than others, but that’s just more evidence for the fact that we’re doing a crap job of keeping people healthy.
For one thing, it makes the title a bit deceptive. If the variance in lifespan is actually caused by something other than location, then where you live doesn’t actually affect your lifespan.
Because race is genetic and genetic variations lead to wildly disparate "outcomes." Your zip code is one of the weakest influences on your health and lifespan, relative to other scientifically proven factors.
> How does that make it meaningless? Yes, certain segments of the population are even more underserved than others, but that’s just more evidence for the fact that we’re doing a crap job of keeping people healthy.
Because by not breaking out the single largest compounding factor, it's masking the real problem underlying this issue: there's a massive disparity in outcomes for people of different races.
Race in fact does play a big factor in health disparities. For example, African Americans are at much higher risk for heart health related issues. And when heart disease is the number 1 killer of people of all races.. well that just doesn't bode well for the life expectancy of AA.
And it's not just because minority populations have worse access to healthcare. There are in fact genetic components that predispose different races to different diseases.
Japanese people, Glaucoma.
AA, heart disease.
White people, Celiac.
Basically there's multiple components: Race, Healthcare access, Poverty, Education, Local Cultural proclivities for: diet, exercise, etc.
That must be a real conundrum in countries that have laws against it. Presumably clearly defined. I think you're onto some paradox here...
Hate speech is not about hurt feelings. But if that's what you understand from it with almost the entire human knowledge available to you a simple internet search away I'm sure no comment here can provide you some relief.
Telling me my shoes don't match the belt is not hate speech. But instigating people against a whole class (race, religion, ethnicity, etc.), usually suggesting violence or some otherwise harmful methods, is. And it ends up with people hurt, lives and whole communities destroyed. You'd understand a lot better if you were at the receiving end of it. Things are very easy to overlook when they never hit close to home.
Nice, they must have added that since launch. I tried providing feedback years ago when it was still new and the feedback seemed to go into a black hole.
